Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript which reported on a study that aimed to explore registered nurses’ awareness and implementation of reasonable adjustments for people with intellectual disability and autism. Please see my comments and suggestions below.

General Comments and Introduction/Background

• Review the use and consistency of abbreviations. For example, ID and ASD are only used a few times and then spelled out in the remaining paper. I was not able to identify what ‘CPD’ meant on page 14 because it was only used once.
• Review the entire paper for sentence structure and grammar. Although the paper was mostly clear, there were several awkward sentences.
• The introduction and background sections were thoughtful and clear. However, I recommend rearranging the background paragraphs to keep similar topics grouped together. Several paragraphs introduced reasonable adjustments and barriers to healthcare access; group these topics together for better flow.

Methods (“The Study”)

• I recommend arranging this section using traditional headings: design, participants, data collection, measures, validity, reliability and rigour, ethical considerations, and data analysis.
• Participants: This sub-heading should include eligibility criteria, methods of selection criteria, recruitment, and consent. Some of the information needed for this sub-heading is misplaced under your ‘data collection’ section.
• Measures/Validity, Reliability, and Rigour: Although you include some of this information under the section of ‘validity and rigour,’ I recommend reviewing other articles in the Journal of Advanced Nursing to see how they discuss the measures. You discuss developing aspects the instrument but do not provide specifics. Did you use extant research to help create the instrument? Do you have reliability statistics (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) or other psychometric properties? I also recommend using sub-headings for each domain of the instrument and discussing them more in-depth (e.g., number of items, response options).
• Data Analysis: I assume you had missing data based on a statement in your data collection section, but how exactly was this handled? Did you conduct complete data analysis and exclude responses with any missing data?

Results

• Use consistent reporting methods. Some results are reported with an n and % whereas others are just %. I recommend only reporting the % in most cases.
• Remember to always include statistics (% and p-value) when making statements such as, “…were all significantly more likely to…” or “…less likely…” There are several of these statements in your methods section that do not include statistics.
• On page 10, you report both state/territory and geographical remoteness. As the reader, geographical remoteness is more relevant. Are both needed?
• The first paragraph on page 10 is long and needs to be separated.
• I did not understand why figures 2 and 3 were not put into table format like the rest of the results. As the reader, I wanted to see specific % and p-values for these results.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your revised manuscript. I commend your team for making the substantive revisions necessary for publication. Most of my suggested edits were satisfactorily addressed. My only remaining suggestion is to reconsider figures 2 and 3. Although you said that figures 2 and 3 were chosen instead of tables for visual variety and comparison, they should reflect the analyses. On pages 17 and 18, you state that the results were "significantly more likely" and report a p-value of <0.001, yet the figures are bar graphs. Why are these results not reported like those in table 1, which show the detailed statistics (test statistic and p-value)? The bar graphs are appropriate for a presentation but not for a scientific publication.